Empty suit: the chaotic way Anonymous makes decisions

In a group that claims to have no leaders, it can be impossible to know when " …

On February 16, the freewheeling hacker collective decided to take on the Kansas-based Westboro Baptist Church, best known for its "God Hates Fags" protests. The Anonymous hivemind, the "Voice of Free Speech & the Advocate of the People," has had enough of this sort of free speech and has decided to fight the church's "assembly of graceless sociopaths and maniacal chauvinists & religious zealots" who issue "venomous statements of hatred."

The manifesto contains the trademark Anonymous prose style, one that might be summed up with the words "florid bombasticism." (Case in point: "Your demonstrations and your unrelenting cascade of disparaging slurs, unfounded judgments, and prejudicial innuendos, which apparently apply to every individual numbered amongst the race of Man ")

And it closes with the typical Anonymous threats, which drinks deep from the wells of prophetic denunciation literature—combined with a splash of The Matrix. "We will target your public Websites, and the propaganda & detestable doctrine that you promote will be eradicated; the damage incurred will be irreversible, and neither your institution nor your congregation will ever be able to fully recover. It is in your best interest to comply now, while the option to do so is still being offered, because we will not relent until you cease the conduction & promotion of all your bigoted operations & doctrines. The warning has been given. What happens from here shall be determined by you."

But did Anonymous really write this? An "organization" without traditional leaders or members faces a problem: knowing who speaks officially for the group. The message had been posted to AnonNews, a site with an "open posting concept" in which "no censorship takes place!"

Within days, other Anons were backing away from the idea of going after Westboro, even as the church tried to taunt them into action.

The art of trolling

Westboro targets Anonymous

On February 20, Westboro responded in an "Open Letter from Westboro Baptist Servants of God to Anonymous Coward Crybaby 'Hackers'." The letter is so over-the-top that it makes Anonymous pronouncements look like philosophical discourses by contrast.

Westboro asks Anonymous to "BRING IT!" and insists that "the only reason the Internet exists is for Westboro Baptist Church to tell this nation & this world that your destruction draws nigh." The letter blasts the "puddle of pimple-faced nerds organized under the cowardly banner of 'Anonymous'" calls the hackers "girls" (an apparent insult), and insists that "Anonymous is warring with God."

Megan Phelps-Roper, grandaughter of Westboro pastor and patriarch Fred Phelps, kept up the trolling on Twitter. "Oh, didn't you hear? Anon.'s gone back to their cowardly corners to lick their wounds. =)," went one message. In Westboro's book, publicity of any kind is a good thing, since it means "that more people will hear this msg: obey or perish! Awesome, right? #ThatsHowGodRolls."

God actually figures in many of Westboro's hash tags. The church's WBCpreacher account also took aim at Anonymous, saying, "Pretty sure at this point they couldn't collectively order a PB&J sandwich w/o an argument #GodSendsThemDelusion."

Clearly, someone at Westboro has taken introductory classes in Internet trolling, though it all seems a bit obvious; the secret gnosis of Advanced Internet Trolling has apparently eluded them.

Troll-tweeting

Anonymous, no strangers to the art of the troll, largely ignored the bait. In a letter posted to AnonNews on the same day, 20 Anons took jabs at the media for writing up the story based on that initial Anonymous statement. "Just because it was posted on AnonNews doesn't mean every single Anon is in agreement, in fact in this case it doesn't even mean a single Anon is in agreement," they said.

As for Westboro, the letter calls the church's troll a "honeypot" designed to harvest the IP addresses of those tempted to attack the church's websites, presumably with the goal of then suing them in order to drum up even more publicity. The church should be ignored.

Still, Anonymous couldn't let the insults pass entirely without answer. "In closing, let us assure you: We are not BAWWWING sissies, nor are we afraid of your false god; we're just really busy. Stay tuned, and we'll come back to play another day."

But when no one's in control, such pronouncements only matter insofar as they convince others in the group. Indeed, on February 20, some Anon posted the names, phone numbers, and addresses of the entire Phelps clan under the title "West Derpish Derp Church." People were asked to "stop wasting time DDoSing these faggots. They're trolling us, so troll them back."

Productive chaos?

The whole event has caused some soul-searching among Anonymous members, who have taken to posting messages about the group's purpose and methods. Some believed that Westboro deserved the attention of Anonymous—so long as that attention took the proper form.

"It's time to dig up the darkest secrets of the Westboro Baptist Church and its members," wrote one Anon. "It's time for the fight to go to the insane people who manage the church. Let's figure out what they're hiding and publicize the hell out of it. If we attack them because we hate their message, it will only publicize their radical views even more. Fred Phelps, be afraid. We are coming for you. We apologize that we jumped the gun earlier and without a proper motive. The next time we contact you, we will have something to talk about."

Part of the, err, slightly more official Anonymous press release

A common complaint was about being sidetracked. Another concluded, "Anonymous, you've decided to go f**k about with trolls rather than helping protestors gain their freedoms. Why, Anonymous?"

A Christian Anon begged his compatriots to ignore Westboro in favor of more important projects. A UK Anon suggested that the group was "being trolled into the sh*t by the religous right."

Other notes went even further, casting doubt on past operations like the recent hack into security firm HBGary. "We have invaded the privacy of corporations, and no matter what other Anons say, the standard behind Anonymous did not agree with the HBGary hit," said one document. "In fact, many of us are waiting for those who were involved in that Operation to be taken in by the law and will not associate with that sort of outlet. Those who are happy with that Operation are nothing more than trolls and we apologize for this as well."

Reading the blizzard of Anonymous notes on the topic of Westboro, one can see the hivemind in action. It's chaotic, often at odds with itself, and open to simple infiltration (several pieces suggested that Westboro may have written the initial "Anonymous" press release just to ignite a war). Leadership is exerted through numbers more than through hierarchy.

Clear downsides exist for this model. Hotheads will always go off and troll people for "the lulz," even as those more concerned with freedom of speech, WikiLeaks, and African protest movements cringe in horror at the damage such attacks can do to the Anonymous reputation. But the great strength of this wildly distributed approach is the way it allows new ideas to bubble up, find like-minded supporters, and express themselves in action. That gives the movement vitality, adaptability, and the occasional black eye. But it's the way Anonymous wants to operate, and by doing so the group has managed to capture the world's attention.

How long such a chaotic organization can last in its current form is anyone's guess, but the chaos means that Anonymous always has internal resources for renewing itself. For instance, some in the group use a tagline:

We are Anonymous.
We are legion.
We do not forgive.
We do not forget.
Expect us.

But should the day come when that message seems too vindictive, other members of Anonymous have already created a softer alternative:

We may be Anonymous, but we are still human.
We may never forgive, but we are still capable of compassion.
We may never forget, but we are still a bad memory for some.
Expect us. Just not all of us.

You're right. It's not news. It's journalism. Specifically, showing how a group that has been making news, and that is often claimed to be working as a single organization is in fact quite chaotic and ill-defined, and given to acting -- at least in this case -- against its own best interests because of that lack of definition.

Anon reminds me of Al-Quida. It built up, did some attacks and is turning into a movement instead of an organization. Still, they need to be respected for their abilities (which I think are far greater than those of Al-Quida).

"When you don't take your opponent seriously, you make him a serious opponent."

Is this really news? Anonymous is not an organization. It's a big unruly mob with inconsistent membership. Because of that, individuals may have differing views from others, and thus decide to act on their own. If an organization were working like this, it might be interesting, but we're talking about a mob.

I know such a study would be difficult, but it would be fascinating to look at the various ideas that enter Anonymous and watch opinions form around these ideas. I'd imagine that the growth of popularity (or dislike) of an idea would be described as acceleration (as popularity rises, the rate at which it rises increases). It would also be interesting to ask the question of if this sort of consensus building is really working against Anonymous.

Well, if having a journalism piece on a website that essentially amounts to a tech journal disturbs you this much, I suppose we could consider removing the gun from your temple so you don't have to visit Ars anymore...

I agree in that I don't think this is the true face of Anonymous, by that I mean, the majority of people that consider themselves Anonymous or the critical mass needed to face Scientology or the whole Wikileaks fiasco, this is just a small number of people who consider themselves fellow Anons. I would think most of Anonymous knows better then anyone not to feed the trolls, and it seems the few that didn't were the ones that tried to start something. It also means anyone could make statements coming from Anonymous and confuse or misrepresent the group which means basically nothing is to believed until actual action backs it up, and its not really official unless enough people are behind those actions.

Anonymous may not agree with Westboro Baptist, or at least most of them might not, but Anonymous generally holds to the ideal that anyone can say anything, its technically hypocritical to defend Wikileaks, and most of what is on /b/ and at the same time announce that Westboro Baptist doesn't have the same right to make outrageous, offensive statements. I see it as a double standard if Anonymous thinks their idea of free speech doesn't extend to the most notorious group of religious trolls out there. Besides, Westboro is fine on the Internet, no one cares about your site if no one visits it, its what they do IRL that is most damaging, now if Anonymous wants to show up in Guy Faux masks at every one of their funeral protests and drown out their message with meme protest signs and singing Rololo, that'd be pretty good.

Now they are going after non-profits? I dunno. Its just not as "noble" or sporting. Corporations spend billions on their networks and network security. Non-profits, rely on donated equipment and internet how-tos.

But the great strength of this wildly distributed approach is the way it allows new ideas to bubble up, find like-minded supporters, and express themselves in action.

This is the true strength of anonymous communication. People are forced to evaluate ideas based solely on the idea itself, and not the reputation/creed/color/sexual orientation/etc.. of the person who brought it up.

Is this really news? Anonymous is not an organization. It's a big unruly mob with inconsistent membership. Because of that, individuals may have differing views from others, and thus decide to act on their own. If an organization were working like this, it might be interesting, but we're talking about a mob.

I always picture Anonymous as a schizophrenic Forest Whittaker with MPD. Obviously completely nuts, but scary and dangerous if you gain his attention.

Quote:

So a group that promotes freedom of speech is curtailing the freedom of speech of an organization that they do not agree with and do not like?

Just because they have freedom of speech doesn't mean you can't try to shut them down. There's a huge difference between the government saying "you can't say that", and a group of people saying "just shut the fuck up with your hateful bullshit already."

Now they are going after non-profits? I dunno. Its just not as "noble" or sporting. Corporations spend billions on their networks and network security. Non-profits, rely on donated equipment and internet how-tos.

These are the people who protest the funerals of dead soldiers, they don't deserve any slack.

So a group that promotes freedom of speech is curtailing the freedom of speech of an organization that they do not agree with and do not like?

Since when was Anonymous "a group that promotes freedom of speech?" DoS attacks, by definition, inhibit speech by blocking the transmission of information. They're the ultimate Internet form of "SHUT UP!"

Anon is a group that promotes itself and its interests. Whenever free speech coincides with their interests, they will use it as a shield. When it doesn't, it will be discarded.

Now they are going after non-profits? I dunno. Its just not as "noble" or sporting. Corporations spend billions on their networks and network security. Non-profits, rely on donated equipment and internet how-tos.

I think the general idea of this article is that "they" don't really care about this...you might have a handful of people that gathered around and sent the initial letter, but you don't have enough people to actual do anything meaningful.

As has been said many times before, Anonymous is not an organization, cult, terrorist group, etc. The most you can say about them is that they are are collective group that will sometimes bandwagon onto specific causes. If they reach a decent size, then something might happen. Otherwise you just have Rickrolling or LOLcats.

Is this really news? Anonymous is not an organization. It's a big unruly mob with inconsistent membership. Because of that, individuals may have differing views from others, and thus decide to act on their own. If an organization were working like this, it might be interesting, but we're talking about a mob.

Why do you think Ars Technica is a news website?

If I click on 'news', this article currently shows up at the top of the page. There was no need to bother writing this when the key point could have been stated by 'Anon is a mob or crowd, not an organization. Since they aren't centrally planned, sometimes not everybody who calls themselves Anon is in favor all of the time, and anybody can call themselves Anon.' This could have been done in one of the handful of other articles that actually contained something vaguely worth writing about.

But the great strength of this wildly distributed approach is the way it allows new ideas to bubble up, find like-minded supporters, and express themselves in action.

This is the true strength of anonymous communication. People are forced to evaluate ideas based solely on the idea itself, and not the reputation/creed/color/sexual orientation/etc.. of the person who brought it up.

but how would like to be associated with what others have expressed and did? If you are of Anonymous, you have to carry all the baggage not just yours. Otherwise what the point of going under the Anonymous banner.

Huh, well...It isnt like I am condoning either side, but Anonymous chose this style of model, the so called hive mind, so they should take responsibility for things like this instead of saying things like "oh, it wasnt me, it was this other guy." Regardless of who it was, it was still Anonymous. Perhaps they should be a little more selective when looking for new members that share their ideology.

And if this whole thing was the work of the church itself, I dont see why this should bother Anonymous much. After all, they specialize in information warfare. In the past, they have shown themselves at being adept at finding hidden information like this. I dont see why they would have trouble uncovering the truth.

I can say they did some interesting stuff, but... the government is a greater forcer than a bunch of coward behind keyboards, unfortunately. And its because the vast majority of people stop caring and let corporations taken control, blah blah blah...Why do you need to be part of anonymous mass to fight the government and power? Don't you find disturbing? just to, in the end, screw everybody else with you? with even less liberty and privacy on internet.

but how would like to be associated with what others have expressed and did? If you are of Anonymous, you have to carry all the baggage not just yours. Otherwise what the point of going under the Anonymous banner.

The 'anonymous banner' is not much more exclusive than 'the internet' or 'humanity.' I am a human. Humanity has done many awful things, but I'm not going to claim to not be human. If you associate what 'Anonymous' does with anybody and everybody who is anonymous, then you are a moron, and your opinion should probably be ignored anyway.

Now they are going after non-profits? I dunno. Its just not as "noble" or sporting. Corporations spend billions on their networks and network security. Non-profits, rely on donated equipment and internet how-tos.

I think the general idea of this article is that "they" don't really care about this...you might have a handful of people that gathered around and sent the initial letter, but you don't have enough people to actual do anything meaningful.

As has been said many times before, Anonymous is not an organization, cult, terrorist group, etc. The most you can say about them is that they are are collective group that will sometimes bandwagon onto specific causes. If they reach a decent size, then something might happen. Otherwise you just have Rickrolling or LOLcats.

It seems then that they need to talk amongst themselves some more before issuing ultimatums.

Is this really news? Anonymous is not an organization. It's a big unruly mob with inconsistent membership. Because of that, individuals may have differing views from others, and thus decide to act on their own. If an organization were working like this, it might be interesting, but we're talking about a mob.

Why do you think Ars Technica is a news website?

If I click on 'news', this article currently shows up at the top of the page. There was no need to bother writing this when the key point could have been stated by 'Anon is a mob or crowd, not an organization. Since they aren't centrally planned, sometimes not everybody who calls themselves Anon is in favor all of the time, and anybody can call themselves Anon.' This could have been done in one of the handful of other articles that actually contained something vaguely worth writing about.

But the great strength of this wildly distributed approach is the way it allows new ideas to bubble up, find like-minded supporters, and express themselves in action.

This is the true strength of anonymous communication. People are forced to evaluate ideas based solely on the idea itself, and not the reputation/creed/color/sexual orientation/etc.. of the person who brought it up.

but how would like to be associated with what others have expressed and did? If you are of Anonymous, you have to carry all the baggage not just yours. Otherwise what the point of going under the Anonymous banner.

If you are anonymous, you don't care if others associate your comments with what others have done under the name, since you are anonymous they don't know who you are, and if they dismiss your idea even if it's good, it's their own loss, not your own.

but how would like to be associated with what others have expressed and did? If you are of Anonymous, you have to carry all the baggage not just yours. Otherwise what the point of going under the Anonymous banner.

The 'anonymous banner' is not much more exclusive than 'the internet' or 'humanity.' I am a human. Humanity has done many awful things, but I'm not going to claim to not be human. If you associate what 'Anonymous' does with anybody and everybody who is anonymous, then you are a moron, and your opinion should probably be ignored anyway.

News may have been too narrow of a word, but it's not even really worthwhile journalism, either. It's just stating the obvious to anybody who is going to get it and fleshing out what should have been maybe a paragraph into a full article.

Now they are going after non-profits? I dunno. Its just not as "noble" or sporting. Corporations spend billions on their networks and network security. Non-profits, rely on donated equipment and internet how-tos.

These are the people who protest the funerals of dead soldiers, they don't deserve any slack.

I dislike them myself. Still its free speech which what I though Anonymous was all about.

Now they are going after non-profits? I dunno. Its just not as "noble" or sporting. Corporations spend billions on their networks and network security. Non-profits, rely on donated equipment and internet how-tos.

These are the people who protest the funerals of dead soldiers, they don't deserve any slack.

As someone who spent 8+ years in a military uniform, I say they "deserve" the same freedoms allotted to anyone else in this country. I don't like their message, and I wouldn't loose a wink of sleep if something would happen to Westboro, but I didn't sign-up to protect only those I agree with. As soon as we start picking and choosing what message is right and what message is wrong, we put all rights in jeopardy.

There's not really a distinction between 'Anonymous' and 'anonymous.' A few jackass activists and media outlets want to portray a difference, but there isn't one. The closest you'll get is a loose focus around some websites for some degree of organization, but it's about as much of a focus as those that use twitter or facebook for social revolution being lumped together.

But the great strength of this wildly distributed approach is the way it allows new ideas to bubble up, find like-minded supporters, and express themselves in action.

This is the true strength of anonymous communication. People are forced to evaluate ideas based solely on the idea itself, and not the reputation/creed/color/sexual orientation/etc.. of the person who brought it up.

but how would like to be associated with what others have expressed and did? If you are of Anonymous, you have to carry all the baggage not just yours. Otherwise what the point of going under the Anonymous banner.

If you are anonymous, you don't care if others associate your comments with what others have done under the name, since you are anonymous they don't know who you are, and if they dismiss your idea even if it's good, it's their own loss, not your own.

My only solace with the parishioners of the Westboro Baptist Church is that if there is a god, they will not be meeting him where they are going.

Not that it's even possible, but as a thought experiment I've always wanted to be a 'fly on the wall' when any one of these fruitcakes dies, and see how they react when they realize that everything they believed for their entire life was wrong.